I am very sorry for not updating for quite a long time. But I just got a book about historical war of Thailand and hope to put some of the contents here soon.

The King and I: the fact of the story

The King and I is a story based on a book by Anna Leonowens and later by Margaret Landon. The story was so popular because people in the west at the time did not know much about Thailand (Siam). The success of the story gave birth to 3 films version, a broadway musical and an animated film over the period of 50 years. It seems that new versions will continue to come out for every generation to experience. However, the story of the book, all the films and the musical are mostly historically incorrect. What worries me (I am Thai) is that the story is re-told so many times over a very long period (about 50 years now). With such degree of re-telling and the fact that every production claims it to be a true story, the story is now turning into the truth for some people.

You may not know that, due to its large degree of inaccurate historical details, all versions of the film are banned in Thailand (The latest version: Anna and The King, had to be filmed in Malaysia). The first two versions were banned also for their insult to our king. King Mongkut was a very noble, intelligent, and sophisticated old man (Yes, he was very old when Anna arrived in Siam. Romance was so-so unlikely to have happened). He had been a monk for 27 years and with that 27 years of practice in Buddhism, languages, science and meditation, no one can argue he was one of the wisest man on the continent. Yet the first 2 films and the broadway musical portrayed him as a savage, barbaric man. The producer knew that Thai people love and respect our king as god and father, yet they still insulted him without any care of Thai people's feeling. (Think of it this way, if I disgustingly insult your god or your father, how would you feel?) They did not even try to do research on the true story, they took the story straight from the book and just labelled it "true story". I feel deeply hurt (I cried after reading the musical's synopsis, how the king was badly portrayed hurt me so much I could not stand it).

Being a Thai, I am proud of my country's history. Yes, Siam has never fallen under Westerner' rules. We, all Thai citizens are very thankful to King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn (King Mongkut's son). Their strategic thinking helped to reform Siam and safe us all from colonization. Yet the films, especially the latest version: Anna and The King, seem to give all the credits to Anna. This is very unfair to both of our kings and many foreign diplomatic and strategic advisors the kings employed.

This site is therefore dedicated to pointing out the story's contents that do not match real historical events. I will also point out customs that are badly displayed or displayed very wrongly in the film.

Anna and The King, the latest version of the story

The new version of The king and I (Anna and the King, starring Chow Yun-Fat and Jodie Foster) is a very well made film and is the best version of the film so far (It does not portray the king as barbaric anymore). But like its predecessors, the event happened in the film never happened in Real Life (Apart from Anna Leonowens teaching 10-13 of the king's children). Imagine if kids watch this, they will misunderstand everything if not receiving a proper guideline. And this is why the film is banned in Thailand.

I do hope the information provided by this page gives correct understanding to the visitors. Furthermore, I do hope the film makers pay more attention to historical events. If you are to make a film out of your imagination, please do not use the character that has solid historical background, since it will ruin the true history. In Anna and the King, you could have use false name for all the characters so we can regard it as a fiction, fiction is very acceptable but false history is bad.

Saying this and that, I do admire the film, the actors, and the film maker for the presentation of this "fiction". The architect did an exceptionally excellent job to re-create the royal palace. The buildings and the scene set are the best. The costumes are very impressive. All of these elements look much more Thai than any previous version of The King and I (There are, of course, odd bits that only Thai people would know).

Below is a table comparing the movie and the real event, according to a discussion session held on chanel 3 Thai TV. The participants were historians and personels from the Thai board of film classification:

The Broadway Musical

Here I shall point out parts of the musical that really hurt Thai people's feeling. The story is quite similar to the latest movie version (but without the traitor) so I think most of the facts can be quoted from the above table. Parts of the story that I want to mention are:
 

The Thai royals themselves were not offended. Our present queen, Queen Sirikit, herself had gone to see the musical and assure Yul Brynner that the royalty was not offended.

The King and I, starring Yul Brynner

This version starred Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr. I saw this film only briefly on TV in the UK. The film is still banned in Thailand. The custom was so misrepresented. I watched the Thai dance in the film and could not stop laughing. It was like a very crude mix of Thai, Chinese, and Japanese dance. I turned the TV off right after that (I should have watched the entire thing so I can now comment on it). But the king surely was not like Yul Brynner (especially manners). I will find another chance to watch this version and the first version.

Our present king, King Bhumibol, had seen the this version. He gave his view that even though the facts were mostly wrong, the movie did portray the 'spirit' of his great grandfather. He liked the idea of 'a strong and agile king'.